Miguel Chavez Vanderbilt University

The Failed Explorer: and Reputation in Exploration

Under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society, British explorers of the nineteenth century traversed the interior of an unknown continent to discover new sights and solve old mysteries. Among these mysteries was the centuries-long quest to discover the source of the river Nile. But bounded in this quest were questions about how explorers can authoritatively speak about a discovery. How can an explorer demonstrate the veracity of their claims? How can an explorer legitimately speak with the voice of a scientist or as a practitioner of science? The questions were most evident in the vitriolic rivalry of John Hanning Speke and Richard Francis

Burton over their competing claims of the Nile’s true source. But this can also be seen in the rise and fall of the career of John Petherick, a little-known explorer of the Nile Valley. Petherick’s career exemplified how reputation – even if divorced from the work of an explorer – nonetheless impacted the legitimacy of the explorer. In assessing John Petherick and the accusations dogging his career, we may better understand how trends within the history of science can be applied in

Nile exploratory history.

John Petherick came to the attention of the Royal Geographical Society due to his experience in the Nile Valley in the 1840s and 1850s. Arriving in to assist in the search for coal deposits in 1845, Petherick shifted his focus towards the gum and ivory trade.

Operating in territories that are now part of and , Petherick traveled into regions unvisited by other Europeans. The most significant of these journeys was to the Bahr el

Ghazal river, located in the swamplands that was impenetrable for earlier expeditions.1 In

1 “Address: At the Anniversary Meeting of the Royal Geographical Society, May 28, 1869, by the Earl DeGray and Ripon, President.,” The African Repository Issue 6, June 01, 1861: 172; From here on out, this region would just be referred as the Sudd. 1858 Petherick was appointed by the British state as the Vice-Consul of , representing

British interests in the Upper Nile.2 After a final Nile expedition in 1858, Petherick returned to

Britain in 1859.3

While in Britain, Petherick would publish a book based on his prior sixteen years in

Egypt and Sudan. But more significant was Petherick’s meetings with the Royal Geographical

Society (RGS) regarding Petherick’s involvement in an expedition to verify the source of the

White Nile. A few years earlier an expedition led by Richard Francis Burton had explored East

Africa in search of a lake purportedly believed to be the source of the Nile. After finding Lake

Tanganyika in early 1858, one of Burton’s lieutenant, John Hanning Speke, stumbled upon Lake

Victoria in 1858. The discoveries of these lakes led to a heated controversy between Burton and

Speke over which lake constituted the real source of the Nile River. Arriving back in Britain around the same time as Petherick, Speke and Burton’s competing claims led the RGS to plan a new expedition to verify Speke’s claim regarding .

Given his familiarity with the region north of the lake, Petherick was invited to join the expedition. Specifically, while Speke and his expedition would arrive at Zanzibar and move north towards Lake Victoria, Petherick was to return to Khartoum and organize supplies for

Speke. Petherick was to then traverse the Sudd swamplands and set up a supply depot at the village of , which is to the south of the Sudd.4 Speke’s arrival at Gondokoro would not only function as a place of respite, but would serve to bookend his expedition over unknown territory. Believing that Petherick was “particularly fitted” to engage in this expedition, the RGS solicited public donations to fund the estimated £2,000 cost of Petherick’s expedition, although

2 Verdcourt, The Conchologists’ Newsletter, 453-458. 3 Petherick, Egypt, the Soudan and Central Africa, 480. 4 “Life in Central Africa,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, April 1861: 452-453; Gondokoro is near the site of modern-day , the South Sudanese capital. only £1,000 was raised and given to Petherick.5 Petherick agreed to serve in this expedition and returned to Khartoum in mid-October 1861.6

John Petherick’s involvement in this expedition elevated him to a preeminent position among contemporary explorers. In musing about the shared origins of Africa’s great rivers, J.F.

Napier Hewett placed Petherick, alongside , Richard Burton, and John

Hanning Speke as the explorers most likely to solve this mystery. In a book review of

Petherick’s Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa (1861), Blackwood’s Edinburgh magazine extolled both Petherick’s personal character and writing style. Comparing Petherick’s adventures with the unadventurous “slaves of the desk” of then-contemporary Britain, the review goes on to state that Petherick is "a remarkable specimen of that Anglo-Saxon race which, in the strangely- mingled characteristics of knight-errant and trader, sends victorious children to every part of the habitable globe."7 In explaining the focus upon Petherick’s character in the review, the reviewer said, “[we] have dwelt on the character of Mr. Petherick, because much of the charm and value of a traveller's [sic] work must depend on his personal qualities."8

These two passages reflected the idea that personal reputation directly impacted the trustworthiness of an individual engaged in a scientific enterprise. That Petherick exemplified standards of virility, honor, and prowess meant that Petherick was trustworthy as an explorer. Of course, Blackwood’s review took at face value Petherick’s self-fashioned narrative that highlighted Petherick’s standing as an explorer. But Petherick’s narrative, if exaggerated, nonetheless reflected an attempt to conform to social expectations of how an explorer should and should not behave. These pressures have been articulated by historians of science regarding the

5 “Life in Central Africa,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, April 1861: 458; Verdcourt, The Conchologists’ Newsletter, 453-458; “The Sources of the Nile,” The African Repository Issue 3 (March 01, 1861): 95. 6 Katherine Petherick, “Mrs. Petherick’s African Journal, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, June 1862: 696. 7 “Life in Central Africa,” 440, 452. 8 “Life in Central Africa,” 452. natural sciences in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As an example, James Endersby’s

Imperial Nature (2010) examined the life and career of Joseph Hooker, the famed botanist and head of the Kew Gardens.9 Endersby argued that Hooker sought to maintain the scientific authority as a disinterested botanist with the practical need to maintain a living through profit.10

But whereas Endersby and other historians of science focused on so-called “gentlemanly scientists,” that is those scientists of the British gentry who resisted the professionalization of scientific practices in the nineteenth century, self-described explorers conformed to standards mirroring those reflected in Blackwood’s review of Petherick.

Petherick’s reputation as an ideal explorer coincided with his role as Britain’s consular representative in Khartoum and his earlier role as a gum and ivory merchant. These coexisting identities were known to travelers and would-be explorers making their way from Egypt to

Khartoum. Clarence Brownville Melville, an American physician travelling the Nile, sought out

Petherick for the chance to join the expedition to rendezvous with Speke.11 Meeting Petherick a few days after his arrival to Khartoum, Brownell expressed admiration for Petherick’s prior exploration of the region.12 After receiving and accepting an offer by Petherick to join the expedition as the chief botanist, Brownell remained in Khartoum as preparations for the expedition were finalized. During this time, Brownell described the luxury of Petherick’s residence, describing sumptuous dinners, nightly parties, and the large staff that maintained the household.13 On 22 March 1861, Petherick, Brownell, and their expedition departed Khartoum for Gondokoro.14 However, the expected rendezvous with Speke did not occur. Unbeknownst to

9 Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010). 10 Endersby, Imperial Nature, 5-7, 29. 11 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “Khartum,” entry for 9 March 1862. SAD.424/9/54. Sudan Archive, Durham University. 12 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “Mr. Petherick,” entry for 11 March 1862. SAD.424/9/57. 13 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “Savage dances,” entry for 15 March 1862. SAD.424/9/60. 14 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “The real start,” entry for 22 March 1862. SAD.424/9/64. Petherick, Speke’s expedition was delayed due to political squabbling amongst the native tribes and kingdoms with the arrival of Speke’s expedition. This delay forced Petherick to stay in

Gondokoro for a year while he waited for Speke’s arrival.15

A few months after Petherick’s departure, Samuel White Baker, another RGS-sanctioned explorer operating along the Blue Nile, made his way to Petherick’s residence in Khartoum.

Entering the residence, Baker was awed by Petherick’s personal menagerie of two ostriches, two leopards, one hyena, and a bamboo.16 Having completed his own expedition of the Blue Nile in

Abyssinia, Baker planned to launch his own expedition along the , taking supplies and provisions to Gondokoro to rendezvous with Speke.17 While Baker did not address how his plans conflicted with Petherick’s, Baker nonetheless reported about his time in Khartoum and his meetings with the European community present in the city. Baker noted the luxurious houses of

French, Austrians, Italians, and Greeks living in the city.18 Baker acknowledged the importance of the gum arabic trade in the commercial life of Khartoum, but slavery, Baker contended, was the lifeblood of the city.19 As Baker stated:

The people for the most part engaged in the nefarious traffic of the White Nile are Syrians, Copts, Turks, Circassians, and some few Europeans [sic]. So closely connected with the difficulties of my expedition is that accursed slave-trade, that the so-called ivory trade of the White Nile requires an explanation.20

Baker’s published remarks on the Nile slave trade constitute a central motif of his book, The

Albert N’yanza (1866), where slavery is an evil that Baker overcame and denounced. However, his unpublished journals on this expedition – which would become the basis of his published

15 Before reaching Gondokoro, Brownell fell ill with a fever and passed away. 16 , The Nile tributaries of Abyssinia, and the sword hunters of the Hamran Arabs (London: Macmillan and Co., 1867): 557. 17 Thomas Paul Ofcansky, ‘Baker, Sir Samuel White (1821–1893)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/view/article/1135, accessed 4 March 2017] 18 Samuel Baker, The Albert N’yanza (London: Sidwick and Jackson, 1866): 8-9. 19 Baker, The Albert N’yanza, 12. 20 Baker, The Albert N’yanza, 13. work – has Baker react less negatively to the evils of slavery. Baker is dubious on the benefits of emancipation and believes many of the slaves are “well-treated.”21 Ultimately, Baker believes that any misery suffered by slaves is a consequence of “their own system.”22

It is worth assessing Baker’s views on slavery as Baker’s stance reflected the self- fashioning performed by explorers. In much the same way Petherick fashioned his narrative to reflect the virtues of virility and honor associated with explorers, Baker’s published work reflected a conscious attempt to take on the mantle as an adversary of slavery in order to service the expectation of a metropolitan audience that an explorer would be anti-slavery. Further, by introducing the specter of slavery with his arrival in Khartoum, Baker positioned himself against the antithesis of a British explorer: John Petherick. By noting the connection between the luxuries generated by the slave trade in Khartoum and the splendor of Petherick’s residence,

Baker planted the suspicion among readers that Petherick was involved in the slave trade.

Baker departed Khartoum in December 1862 and arrived on 2 February 1863.23 With him, he brought rumors from various expatriates in Khartoum that Petherick was engaged in the slave trade, influenced by suspicions surrounding Petherick’s wealth. Arriving in Gondokoro, he found the depot Petherick had installed, but could not find Petherick. Petherick was in the countryside of Gondokoro, and this absence proved fateful. On 15 February 1863, Speke and his expedition finally reached Gondokoro.24 Petherick’s absence enraged Speke, viewing the absence as an abdication of duty. Further, given that Speke’s expedition was delayed in Central

Africa for longer than expected, Speke resented the fact that Petherick engaged in trade instead of searching for him.25 In a 1864 letter written to an unknown RGS fellow, Speke denounced

21 Samuel Baker, journal, entry for 22 August 1862, RGS/SWB/1, Royal Geographical Society. 22 Baker, journal, entry for 24 August 1862, RGS/SWB/1. 23 Baker, journal, entry for 18 December 1862, RGS/SWB/1; Baker, journal, entry for 2 February 1863, RGS/SWB/1. 24 Ofcansky, “Baker, Sir Samuel White.” 25 Verdcourt, “John Petherick,” 453–458. Petherick’s conduct in Gondokoro.26 This anger was evident in so many of Speke’s letters that

Roderick Murchison, President of the RGS, felt was “violent” in tone.27 Finally, Speke’s published account of the expedition, Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile (1864), praised Baker’s steadfastness and condemned Petherick’s greed.28

Upon meeting Petherick in March 1863, Baker and Petherick engaged in acrimonious discussions regarding the rumors of Petherick’s involvement in the slave trade.29 But these discussions did not only encompass the past allegations of slave trading, but included the accusation that Petherick’s expedition was currently engaged in slave trading.30 Baker accused

Petherick’s men of being “lawless scoundrels” who robbed legitimate merchants and engaged in slaving and cattle rustling.31 Despite Baker’s initial view of Petherick as a hapless victim carried forward by the whims of his own men, Baker states that Petherick relented and acknowledged his role in cattle rustling, but not of slave trading.32 When Petherick threatens to leave Gondokoro,

Baker warns him that the charge of cattle rustling would continue to haunt him.33 While

Petherick would return to Khartoum, the allegations of impropriety continued to spread.

In reporting these rumors of Petherick, Baker bolstered his own reputation as an explorer in two steps. First, Baker positioned himself as the enemy of the slave trade, which defined his characterization of his 1861-1865 and his later 1869-1873 expeditions. Second, Baker’s testimony would become ammunition to further sully Petherick’s reputation as an explorer once

Speke returned to Britain. Meanwhile, Baker’s status as an explorer only increased. In gaining

Speke’s favor, Baker used Speke’s information of the region to explore additional lands,

26 John Hanning Speke to the Royal Geographical Society, letter, 19 February 1864, RGS/JHS/1/46. 27 Verdcourt, “John Petherick,” 458. 28 Speke, 542-545, 29 Baker, journal, entries for 8-23 March 1863, RGS/SWB/2. 30 Baker, journal, entry for 8 March 1863, RGS/SWB/2. 31 Baker, journal, entry for 8 March 1863, RGS/SWB/2; Baker, journal, entry for 9 March 1863, RGS/SWB/2. 32 Baker, journal, entry for 11 March 1863, RGS/SWB/2. 33 Baker, journal, entry for 19 March 1863, RGS/SWB/2. culminating in the discovery of in 1864.34 Dejected by Speke and Baker’s animosity,

Petherick and the remnants of his expedition departed Gondokoro for Khartoum in March

1863.35

In the midst of these accusations, Petherick was not silent. Accompanying Petherick was his wife, Katherine, whose journal of the expedition became the basis of Travels in Central

Africa (1869), Petherick’s last attempt to salvage his reputation.36 In the published work, John

Petherick is depicted as the enemy of slavery, who used his authority as both an explorer and a consular official to stymie the practice.37 Samuel Baker was depicted as a duplicitous opportunist bent on taking Petherick’s place in the expedition.38 Nonetheless, Petherick’s attempts were insufficient to repair his damaged reputation. While Speke’s own reputation would be damaged as a result of his hatred of Petherick, Petherick only published his own response in 1869, six years after the events in Gondokoro and five years after Speke’s untimely death.39 A review of

Petherick’s book questioned the necessity of the delay in publication when the work lacked a coherent structure and narrative.40 Another review was sympathetic to Petherick’s conflicting interests as an RGS explorer and as a merchant while waiting for Speke’s arrival.41 Nonetheless, the book review chided Petherick for failing to combat the Nile slave trade, as would be expected from “the representative of the British Government [sic]” in Sudan.42 In short, Petherick’s

34 Ofcansky, “Baker, Sir Samuel White.” 35 John Petherick and Katherine Petherick, Travels in Central Africa, and explorations of the western Nile tributaries (London: Tinsley Brothers, 1869): 316-317. 36 Katherine Harriet Petherick, Travel journal in the Sudan, January 1862-July 1863, MS.5788, Wellcome Library. 37 Petherick, Travels in Central Africa, 70-71, 135-136, 141-142. 38 Petherick, Travels in Central Africa, 313. 39 Roy Bridges "Speke, John Hanning (1827–1864), explorer in Africa." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 40 “Consul Petherick in Central Africa,” The Saturday Review, 6 November 1869. 41 “The Literary Examiner: Travels in Central Africa, and Explorations of the Western Nile Tributaries. By Mr and Mrs Petherick. In Two Volumes. Tinsley. The Examiner and London Review, 20 November 1869. 42 “The Literary Examiner,” 20 November 1869. attempts to salvage his reputation would fail. Losing his consular office shortly after the expedition, Petherick returned to Britain and lived in quiet obscurity until his death in 1882.43

Petherick’s exploratory career reflected the ways in which scientific trustworthiness depended upon the personal reputation of the scientific practitioner. In turn, this personal reputation was dependent upon an individual following or transgressing against social norms and expectations. Petherick’s initial reputation as an elite explorer resulted from Petherick’s self- fashioned narratives of his time in Egypt and Sudan. In this narrative, Petherick was the epitome of the Victorian man, simultaneously resisting the effeminizing influence of modern Britain while also extolling British virtues in alien lands. However, allegations of Petherick’s ties with the Nile slave trade transgressed against British social expectations that an explorer would not engage in such a practice. Given the lack of evidence, it is impossible to state whether John

Petherick was the victim of libelous accusations or was indeed a slave trader. Instead, the suspicion of slave trading gave Samuel Baker an avenue to displace Petherick as Speke’s successor. This suspicion gave Speke more evidence to ruin Petherick’s reputation among RGS fellows. And this suspicion defined retrospectives of Petherick’s life ever since. Regardless of

Petherick’s discoveries, his work as a naturalist, or his contributions as an explorer, Petherick’s ruined reputation erased his standing as an explorer and as a man of science.

43 Obituary: John Petherick,” The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 11 November 1882: 271.